Please.. Please..

[Revanchist]

I'm with the dinos, just out of principle.

I've noted that C&C fans are generally very picky. Now, yes, some of EA's C&C offerings have been...sub par, but most have been at least fairly good, though not perfect (and with too short campaigns!).

I think that most of us are beset by a nostalgia that makes the past look better than it was, and I think part of that is the Internet. We get a flash of nostalgia about a game we played when we were younger and unexperienced (for the most part) and wonder why the newer games don't seem as special as the old ones used to, and we put a blurb about it online. Then someone else comes by and sees our blurb and latches onto it...etc.

Or at least, that's how it seems to work for me.

[Heron]

Personally going with Ants. Can't get wrong with a Tesla Queen Ant after all.

Onto your point, C&C fans are picky, and a sequel must be pretty special for it to perform as well as the original. But you have to see that the criticisms for C&C4 are the worst of all, where criticisms are across the board.

[Lord-Vale3]

Folks, get over Westwood.

EA has talent. It just needs to let its talent do work instead of rush it.

[Heron]

Folks, get over Westwood.

EA has talent. It just needs to let its talent do work instead of rush it.

Sure they do have talent. But the issue is we and EA didn't give them time, and they took some pretty questionable decisions in creative and art design too, I feel. So...

[Klandri]

We should wait and see. Any more of these threads, and EA might just really do C&C: Ants vs Dinosaurs...

(...)

...on Facebook.

Featuring an all new commandos Alan Grant and John Hammond on an epic quest to save the earth from evil Formicidae.

[Zaptagious]

Give VG a chance.

Also, lol @ the sesame street forum tag.

[Heron]

Featuring an all new commandos Alan Grant and John Hammond on an epic quest to save the earth from evil Formicidae.

Jurassic Park wasn't what I had in mind though. LOL.

[House-Atreides]

The team may be on different projects, and not have done a command and Conquer game in 10 years, but look at this fact.
The Chevrolet Camaro.. The orignal was fantastic.. the models in the 90's were not. And the camaro died.
What happens.. They took the format of the original, and made it into a fantastic new car. the 2010 Camaro..
The same concept applies.

Also, for all the people who just love to be spiteful. let me just give you something for your vehemacy.
Now, I may be biased, as I work for TURN 10. . But NFS SHift is awful.. the handling physics.. realistic?.
And James. You wondered why I did not take your job offer.
Anyway..
I digress...
The point I am trying to make is quite simply this: Whist originality is alway encouraged,should you fall away too much from the original product, be it games, music, TV, many people will be turned off...

OK. Hate away.....

[Heron]

The team may be on different projects, and not have done a command and Conquer game in 10 years, but look at this fact.
The Chevrolet Camaro.. The orignal was fantastic.. the models in the 90's were not. And the camaro died.
What happens.. They took the format of the original, and made it into a fantastic new car. the 2010 Camaro..
The same concept applies.

Also, for all the people who just love to be spiteful. let me just give you something for your vehemacy.
Now, I may be biased, as I work for TURN 10. . But NFS SHift is awful.. the handling physics.. realistic?.
And James. You wondered why I did not take your job offer.
Anyway..
I digress...
The point I am trying to make is quite simply this: Whist originality is alway encouraged,should you fall away too much from the original product, be it games, music, TV, many people will be turned off...

OK. Hate away.....

It's not that we should forget about the old school stuff. Heck, if anything, we shouldn't, and we should keep it in mind when developing a C&C title. However, the frequency of these threads are definitely on the high side, and it is irritating. Not to mention that the problems with the franchise are not with sticking with the 'old school feel', it is how, through a combination of questionable design decisions, messed up management, and the community's kneejerking to any failure that resulted in such a situation.

And that's why we should give VG the support. We should still give them our opinions on how a C&C title should be like, like how, using your example, when the new models of the C&C by EALA didn't work, VG should take how the original games of C&C95 and RA1 felt like, give it their new interpretation, and make a new C&C. Does that mean that they should bring in the old guard? Personally, I don't know, but they should be given a chance, is all I am saying. After all, if VG doesn't know what they are doing, this franchise will just bleed to death.

[Harrrr]

Here's my issue. The good 'ol days, weren't extraordinarily good aside from the first two games. WW lost it's magic long before the studio closed and was filtered into EALA; see if you can find some videos of Earth and Beyond, and you will know exactly what I mean. People tend to look at the past with rosy-colored nostalgia goggles and like to label things in black and white (WW good; EA bad), when it's all just a shade of grey.

Also, in your example, House. You are talking about a concept, and idea that can be regurgitated and schlepped around by anyone; but with your WW idea, you specifically want to bring back people than in all likely-hood can't or won't go back; that is why you were met with resistance. Assuming your statement is correct about where you work, you know how the industry goes with contracts, NDAs, and non-compete clauses for full-time devs (some of that may not apply to the freelancers). One of the founders of CnC and Westwood, Louis Castle, was with EA up until 2009/2010.

Heron, hit it at one point about how the old-school feel isn't one of the main targets. In most commercial reviews all of the CnC titles (sans CnC4) were hit critically for being TOO old-school and "safe" and not shaking up the RTS genre enough. The devs can hit old-school, they just weren't given the time and the autonomy to do so. Given that Feasel and/or Black mentioned that CnC3 and RA3 actually had only 11-month dev cycles illustrates exactly why the games were they way they were.